--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, Peter Smaardijk
<smaardijk@y...> wrote:
> Still, what remains here is the fact that the turning point is on
the
> coastline (at low tide) of an islet. Why would such a point have
been
> chosen, and not, say, the centre of the islet or the highest
point? In
> other words, the way it is sometimes done in Scandinavia.
They could
> have done that, if the (maritime) boundary has no real meaning
when it
> runs across land. It wouldn't have made any difference. Maybe
the idea
> that some day this boundary running across dry land might
become a
> source of doubt (like here at BP) was playing in the heads of
the
> people who thought this up after all. When you take the central
or
> highest point of an island, there is much more land to be in
doubt over
> than there is in the actual situation.
i follow & agree with all the above
moreover from the look & feel of the 1972 agreement i sense
some concern on the part of france not to let these probably
useless islets count for projecting the maritime boundary any
farther out from newfoundland than necessary
& some corresponding concern on the part of canada to
emphasize while making this concession that these maybe
useless maybe not so useless islands are nevertheless not
french at all but entirely canadian
& if so then this alone was good enough use to put them to
especially considering that nice piece of folk history you found
earlier which strongly suggested some real tradition of
habitability & of a cafr land boundary on one of these isles
albeit curiously neither of the islets with the turn points iirc
&but which at first seemed to promote the idea of a cafr land
boundary
etc
canada might well have been concerned to obliterate any such
notion or tradition
since if allowed it would tilt the maritime boundary a good ways
back toward newfy
>
> Or maybe, being a point of a maritime boundary, it should be
wet by
> definition. And now it's wet, albeit only just.
they even say off the coast rather than on the coast
at one point in the treaty
probably for this reason & all the above reasons too
>
> Attached a little scheme of how I think the situation is at both
points
> we're talking about. Please tell me if I interpreted your
conclusions
> wrong.
perfect & better than i could have done
thanx
i can hardly wait to see how it is actually portrayed by canada on
the topo imminently arriving in dougs mailbox
but we may have to wait til next year if he has already bounded off
to bzgtmx
indeed i dont know which i would prefer to happen first